Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Redwolf

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL


  • Location
    Boston, MA, USA
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sorry for the late reply. TacOps runs fine inside MacOS if you have the Wine "emulator" (technically it is not an emulator, it is an API translation layer, but whatever). Unfortunately due to a variety of reasons the Wine software does not have prebuilt packages for OSX. You will have to build it yourself. This has been nagging me for years but it is what it is. https://wiki.winehq.org/MacOS It does, however, work. And once you got it working I don't see why you would have to update it since no security problems should arise when just using wine for tacops. As such, you could ask a computer-savvy friend to do it for you once. A pure remote install is annoying. The reason why I cannot provide a one-step fire-and-forget script that does the build is that some requirements are interactive, for example the installation of Xcode. If you wish and there is interest we could explore a hybrid model where you would have to do the Apple-specific interactive nonsense such as installing Xcode, and I provide a script from the earliest point that it can be scripted. P.M. me or reach out on the TacOps mailing list. Alternatively, if you have a valid license for a Windows license then you could install it in a virtual machine. The VirtualBox virtual machine provided by Sun is pretty slick in both install and usage. You would then run a complete windows desktop inside a window on the Mac. TacOps should work fine in there (VirtualBox has sucky 3D but TacOps doesn't use it).
  2. I like to bash BFC's DRM as much as the next guy, but to be honest if your AV program silently drops your specifically made exclusions then your AV program has a bug there. Also, reinstall doesn't require reactivation. The AV did not prevent the executable from anchoring the DRM information deep in the system, it's still there Even given all that, why don't you just keep a copy of the exe file on a USB stick after each update so that you can copy it back when the exclusion got excluded?
  3. You are only using one of those 8 cores. AMD processors from K10 (Bulldozer) and up have very interesting performance characteristics that and OK for many things and outright suck donkey balls for others. So, what specifically are you seeing for low performance? Low panning speed?
  4. Those are previous distribution deals, probably all through Paradox. My understanding is that some actions on Paradox' part lead to the current stance against bigger distribution partners.
  5. That isn't comparable to Steam. The console dictators control things right in the development tools, and you can never escape the platform without a complete rewrite of all system interfacing parts.
  6. There are also UI issues that the crowd here can live with, thanks to muscle memory after you decided you *will* make the investment, but that would get very negative feedback on steam. The steam crowd would also react even less favorably than this one if values for turning vehicles, breakdown, turning guns etc are all picked to be too slow (compared to youtube or whatever). I don't think it would be hopeless after a couple cleanups, though.
  7. Well, Steam appears to support holding back patches and I see no indication that they force sales on you. And support is through the original company anyway. That makes it much better (in these respects) than any of the previous distribution partners which really ticked off a lot of players, and had delayed patches and the like. Quite frankly, I wish BFC had operated with the current attitude back in those days.
  8. "3. Who sets the price for my game on Steam? Pricing is very title specific, and we've got a lot of data and experience to help you decide on what the best price is for your title. We'll work with you to figure out pricing." You see there is no extra cost for the game owner. Reaching a customer for $5 who payed $0 so far? Why not? And if he tells his buddies who arrive after the sale is over? I am pretty sure that Steve wouldn't look favorably at what some Steam sales dude who just pushed some bird crap last week has to tell him about CM pricing
  9. Well now we go from DRM to distribution. The BFC DRM does indeed have the advantage of supporting offline play relatively smoothly for those who have a dedicated gaming computer that goes through few changes and might want to play with no connectivity. A large part of the CM player base as it hangs out on this forum supports that choice, whether I personally like it or not (so the best I can hope for is dual licensing schemes). BFC's distribution is absolutely terrible. The base game went fine-ish with the CMRT release, except that there was no restartable download on a huge file. But the amateurish and insecure patch distribution is a real problem that I think nobody denies. At the same time they don't allow us to distribute among ourselves although the files are binary identical. That, again, is done due to fear of piracy, although from my point of view that should be the DRM's job, not control of the distribution file. If BFC was actually serious about that they should digitally sign the distribution files with the customer id so that they can be tracked, but BFC doesn't have the technology base for that.
  10. One issue certainly is the DRM. The current DRM that BFC puts on would be verboten on Steam. It wouldn't be that required if you change to an online only play style, but BFC also said that going from a license systems that anchors itself in your system like a virus to online only is something the player base doesn't want. Which is definitely true for many players on this forum. The average person who already uses Steam and might be a new CM customer will have a different view on the issue. Steam has offline licensing but it is less aggressive than what they have right now. The whole DRM thing is more emotional than technical. Just trying to evaluate how much piracy you would maybe get from a softer Steam DRM, if it is, would be quite the handful and of course technical detail isn't available to answer that question. Then you open the can of worms of how much more piracy in absolute terms you accept in exchange for more paying customers. Steve at least has stated clearly that it is zero. He has a real problem with people stealing his game, and he clearly stated that more revenue from more paying customers in exchange would not make good for that. Personally I don't agree but that is nothing new.
  11. I am an early supporter but I'm not that optimistic about this game. Let's see.
  12. Then I'm waiting for wing commander.
  13. I would like to but it is so much trouble messing with windows and dos emulations.
  14. Yes, I think Steve declared it to be an abstraction at some point. And that is good because without such an abstraction the game would unrealistically punish movers. You wouldn't be able to represent the short stop shots directly but you cannot omit them either. However, the OP observes the more general situation around ambushes in CM. The movers spot the attackers pretty quickly, especially the sighting of towed guns is questionable, and they return too accurate fire too early. As you say I don't think that this should be looked at simply from the standpoint of how accurate tanks on the move fire. The whole package has to be considered. My pet thing in this complex continues to be a lack of zeroing in, and preserving the range knowledge gained, on part of the ambusher. CM games lose the zeroing in information too easily starting their rangefinding from scratch as if they just arrived. But again that is just one piece in the puzzle.
  15. You are turning around what I said. The 1:1 we had in CMx1 had a weakness that would be much easier to fix than the weakness we have with the 1:1 in CMx2 (the latter either requiring much better AI which is difficult to do or you need much more complicated commands to state intent). The fact that CMx1 was abandoned unfinished doesn't change that. Either way, the situation in the OP isn't isolated and it is entirely expected given the pick of which 1:1 you want and how action spots work. BFC should have been prepared to deal with it when they made their choices. Are you sure CMx2 gives cover from enemy fire from friendly vehicles?
  • Create New...